How did you keep in contact before Facebook? Try that.
You don't get to control how other people, for example, invite you to parties. They'll just check everyone's name on facebook and be done. Be on FB or don't get invited. It's that simple.
For one thing, it imposes a schedule. You don't have to be worried about the kids waking you up at 7:02 if they'd be missing a favorite show. It also imposes a limit on how long they want to watfch TV without making it an arbitrary (or obvious) rule. For another, studies have show that for educational television, binging a show results in less education.
Also, it will let the parents know enough about what their kid watched on any given day to be prepared. "Oh, they watched the Sesame Street about rainbows, better brush up on my atmospheric distortion theory."
The problem is, any such app would geotag people it identifies. That would limit the places/poeple who would allow it to function. Certainly, GoogleGlass was banned from bars over this issue.
I don't think I've ever seen billion written out as MMM or trillion written out as MMMM. I've never seen one thousand written out as M (usually k). I often see million as MM. I assume that's a carry over when someone made a decision a long time ago.
Mobile networks are not a natural monopoly, the way wired networks are.
I find your views on limitless spectrum intreging and would like to know more. At the very least, you can always (at huge expense) run more non-interfering fiber. You cannot just broadcast more data.
My point is that LISP and Smalltalk weren't interesting because of (or hell, I would stay were interesting in spite of) dynamic typing. They have other other important reasons people used them. It's like claiming the reason that people like to go n cruises is the unlimited soda for their children. Sure that's a thing that some people want (and other people oppose), but it's never been close to why its interesting.
I agree that top talent can use pretty much any environment. And that static vs. dynamic typing has never been (even close to) the most important decision point (or event a point that comes up unless you're writing a language).
I do also think that static typing is superior, and like to argue about it on the internet.
I have often wondered how much the world would be different had Python been used as the in-browser programming language rather than JS (ECMAscript) from the start.
Python seems... fine. But the language itself seems pretty meh. It doesn't seems any more compact than any other. The amazing amount of libraries, on the other hand, make it a language worth using.
Which means it would have ended up getting a lot of frontend JS-style libraries (and DOM control), and a lot fewer command and control style ones (since it would have gotten a nasty reputation like JS did as a domain of non-real programmers).
But the actual big difference would be that functional programming would never have experienced its (re?)surgence, and OO would still be king of the hill. Which, in turn, wouldchange things dramatically.
LISP and Smalltalk were early exemplars of functional programming and object oriented programming respectively. Dynamic typing had little to nothing to do with it.
The only reason you weren't able to play XBox with a gaming mouse and keyboard from the very first XBox was the competitive advantage it gives in multiplayer games. (In fact, IIRC, some RTS games on the XBox allowed a keyboard/mouse until MS didn't want people reminded about it.) The "controller in hand" crowd is worth too much to make them compete against mouse/keyboard.
Best argument I've heard against breaking them up. Note, I really do think that they are too huge... but if some company has to be too huge, I'd rather it not be the ones you listed.
Has Google prevented anyone from coming up with a superior search technology?
,P>With their foundational patents, yes they have.
Is Google forcing Mozilla or Apple to make Google the default search engine?
Forcing? I guess some people consider huge payouts to be coercive. They're certainly anti-comeptitve and sponsored by kickbacks, not because Mozilla/Apple think Google is the best.
Google is capturing everything it can about all of us, but have they ever sold that information, or let it loose through negligence?
Yes, yes they have. Well, not me personally, but there have indeed been cases of them doing that. Not in bulk losses, but in breeches for individual uses (and bystanders)
ut should we really break companies up just for being successful?
Yes, yes we should. Because otherwise they'll prevent the next huge company from revolutionizing our space.
I think putting limits on advertising CCGs to kids would also be a good idea. Grab-bags are different in no one is going to buy 100 of them to get a specific toy.
I can see why that feature needed a several month cycle to get into Chrome. I mean, can you imagine the difficulty of implementing and testing that feature.
Of course, not autoplaying video was a rule for like 20 years, and had the added benefit of loading faster, less bandwidth, and just as many clicks to watch the video.
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, thanks for being the first procrypto person to actually respond with a link when asked.
You don't get to control how other people, for example, invite you to parties. They'll just check everyone's name on facebook and be done. Be on FB or don't get invited. It's that simple.
How can a zero-knowledge proof system solve double-spending?
As far as I know, I'm the only one on here who actually reads anything.
Isn't this true of European news as well? I don't mean the US centricism, but local news being... local.
For one thing, it imposes a schedule. You don't have to be worried about the kids waking you up at 7:02 if they'd be missing a favorite show. It also imposes a limit on how long they want to watfch TV without making it an arbitrary (or obvious) rule. For another, studies have show that for educational television, binging a show results in less education.
Also, it will let the parents know enough about what their kid watched on any given day to be prepared. "Oh, they watched the Sesame Street about rainbows, better brush up on my atmospheric distortion theory."
The problem is, any such app would geotag people it identifies. That would limit the places/poeple who would allow it to function. Certainly, GoogleGlass was banned from bars over this issue.
I don't think I've ever seen billion written out as MMM or trillion written out as MMMM. I've never seen one thousand written out as M (usually k). I often see million as MM. I assume that's a carry over when someone made a decision a long time ago.
I find your views on limitless spectrum intreging and would like to know more. At the very least, you can always (at huge expense) run more non-interfering fiber. You cannot just broadcast more data.
Controlled by the Yakuza is great. Who steals from them?
My point is that LISP and Smalltalk weren't interesting because of (or hell, I would stay were interesting in spite of) dynamic typing. They have other other important reasons people used them. It's like claiming the reason that people like to go n cruises is the unlimited soda for their children. Sure that's a thing that some people want (and other people oppose), but it's never been close to why its interesting.
I agree that top talent can use pretty much any environment. And that static vs. dynamic typing has never been (even close to) the most important decision point (or event a point that comes up unless you're writing a language).
I do also think that static typing is superior, and like to argue about it on the internet.
Python seems... fine. But the language itself seems pretty meh. It doesn't seems any more compact than any other. The amazing amount of libraries, on the other hand, make it a language worth using.
Which means it would have ended up getting a lot of frontend JS-style libraries (and DOM control), and a lot fewer command and control style ones (since it would have gotten a nasty reputation like JS did as a domain of non-real programmers).
But the actual big difference would be that functional programming would never have experienced its (re?)surgence, and OO would still be king of the hill. Which, in turn, wouldchange things dramatically.
LISP and Smalltalk were early exemplars of functional programming and object oriented programming respectively. Dynamic typing had little to nothing to do with it.
Is there top talent anywhere that prefers dynamic typing?
Where are you located? Do you allow telecommuting?
New York is supposedly following their lead and putting in the same regulations. Add California, and who needs the federal regulations.
Hmmm, my reading of 27 CFR 447.21 puts them in the same category as howitzers and mortars. IANAL; maybe there's something I'm missing?
The only reason you weren't able to play XBox with a gaming mouse and keyboard from the very first XBox was the competitive advantage it gives in multiplayer games. (In fact, IIRC, some RTS games on the XBox allowed a keyboard/mouse until MS didn't want people reminded about it.) The "controller in hand" crowd is worth too much to make them compete against mouse/keyboard.
Best argument I've heard against breaking them up. Note, I really do think that they are too huge... but if some company has to be too huge, I'd rather it not be the ones you listed.
,P>With their foundational patents, yes they have.
Forcing? I guess some people consider huge payouts to be coercive. They're certainly anti-comeptitve and sponsored by kickbacks, not because Mozilla/Apple think Google is the best.
Yes, yes they have. Well, not me personally, but there have indeed been cases of them doing that. Not in bulk losses, but in breeches for individual uses (and bystanders)
Yes, yes we should. Because otherwise they'll prevent the next huge company from revolutionizing our space.
A flamethrower is illegal under federal law, and penalized heavily (unless you get a special license).
I think putting limits on advertising CCGs to kids would also be a good idea. Grab-bags are different in no one is going to buy 100 of them to get a specific toy.
I can see why that feature needed a several month cycle to get into Chrome. I mean, can you imagine the difficulty of implementing and testing that feature.
Of course, not autoplaying video was a rule for like 20 years, and had the added benefit of loading faster, less bandwidth, and just as many clicks to watch the video.
Why is it fair that they charge more for hotmail users? Correlation is not causation.